Obrazy na stronie

san., 9, 10, 2.)—Phidias not only practised statuary, the art in which he was pre-eminent, but also engraving, as we learn from Martial (Epigr., 3, 35), and from Julian (Epist., 8, p. 377, ed. Spanh.). The pupils of this most distinguished artist were, Agoracritus, Alcamenes, and Colotes. (Sullig, Dict. Art., s. v.– Junius, Catal. Artific., p. 151, seqq. Muller, de Phid. Wit., p. 37, seqq.)—The sublime style perfected by Phidias seems almost to have expired with himself; not that the art declined, but a predilection for subjects of beauty and the softer graces, in preference to more heroic and masculine character, with the exception of the grand relievos on the temple at Olympia, may be traced even among his immediate disciples. In the era and labours of Phidias, we discover the utmost excellence to which Grecian genius attained in the arts; and in the marbles of the British Museum, the former ornaments of the Parthenon, we certainly behold the conceptions, and, in some measure, the very

ractice of the great Athenian sculptor. Of the intel}. character of these admirable performances, grandeur is the prevailing principle ; the grandeur of simplicity and nature, devoid of all parade or ostentation of art; and their author, to use the language of antiquity, united the three characteristics, of truth, grandeur, and minute refinement; exhibiting majesty, gravity, breadth, and magnificence of composition, with a practice scrupulous in detail, and with truth of individual representation, yet in the handling rapid, broad, and firm. This harmonious assemblage of qualities, in themselves dissimilar, in their result the same, gives to the productions of this master an ease, a grace, a vitality, resembling more the spontaneous overflowings of inspiration than the laborious o; of thought and science. (Memes, History of the Fine Arts, p. 52, seqq.)—In the course of this article, we have frequently referred to the Life of Phidias by Müller. We will end with a brief account of it, which may also serve, in some degree, as a recapitulation of what has here been advanced. Müller published, in 1827, three dissertations relative to Phidias, read before the Royal Society of Sciences at Göttingen. The first is a biographical sketch of Phidias, and establishes beyond doubt that Phidias began to embellish Athens with his works of sculpture in Olympiad 82 or 83, when Pericles was $7tarātm;; that he finished, in the third year of Olympiad 85, the statue of Minerva for the Parthenon; that the Elians, when the name of Phidias had become known over all Greece for the splendid works he had executed at Athens, induced him to come to Elis, and that he made there the statue of the Olympian Jove between Olympiads 85.3, and 86.3; and, finally, that after his return to Athens, he was thrown into prison by the enemies of Pericles, on a charge of impiety, and that he died in prison, in the first year of Olympiad 87, in which year the last work of Pericles, the Propylaea, had been finished.—The second shows the state of the fine arts before Phidias, and to what height they were carried by his genius.-The third gives a new explanation of the statues on the

western front of the Parthenon at Athens. The work is in Latin, and has the following title: “C. Odofr. Muelleri de Phidia, Vita et Operibus Commentationes

tres, &c.” (Götting., 1827, 4to.) PhidoN, I. a king of Argos, of the race of the Heraclidae, who, breaking through the constitutional checks oy which his power was restrained, made himself absolute in his native city. He soon became possessed of extensive rule by various conquests, reducing, about the 3d Olympiad, the city of Corinth under his sway, and subsequently, about the 8th Olympiad, the greater part of the Peloponnesus. (Muller, Æginet., p. 51, seqq.) The Lacedæmonians were at this time too much occupied with the first Messenian war to be able to check his progress, while he himself, as the descendant of Temenus, one of the Heraclidae, founded his

conquests upon his claim to the possessions of his progenitor. (Muller, p. 52.) Phidon is described by Herodotus (6, 127) and Pausanias (6, 22) as having exercised his authority in the most arbitrary manner of any of the Greeks. Among other acts of highhanded power was his driving out the Elian agonothetae, or presidents of the games, and presiding himself in their stead. (Herod., l. c.—Pausan, l. c.) Phidon is said to have been the first who established a common standard of weights and measures for the Peloponnesians. Not that, as some maintain, he was the inventor of weights and measures, for these were in existence long before (Salmas., de Usur., p. 429– Heyne, ad. Hom., vol. 5, p. 389), but he caused one uniform kind of weights and measures to be used by those of the Peloponnesians whom he had reduced beneath his sway. (Herod., l. c.—Muller, p. 56.) He is reported also to have been the first that stamped money, or, in other words, introduced among the Greeks a regular coinage. This can only mean, not, as Salmasius thinks, that he merely stamped a certain mark on silver and brass laminae, which had before been estimated by weight, but that he abolished the use of metallic bars or spits, and brought in stamped lamina for the first time. (Muller, Æginet., p. 57– Id., Dorians, vol. 2, p. 386, Eng, transl.—Etymol. Mag., s. v. 'O68%iakoç.) This early mint was established in the island of Ægina, at that time subject to his sway, and the very place for one, since its inhabitants were famed for their industrious and commercial habits. (Strab., 376.-Eustath. ad Il., 2, p. 604– Marmor. Par., p. 25, ep. 31.) The scholiast on Pindar (Ol., 13, 27) makes Phidon to have been a Corinthian; 4Tetón beiðov ric, Koptvtuos divip, eúpe usrea Kai otatuta. This, however, can only mean, that Phidon, on the conquest of Corinth, introduced there the same weights and measures, and the same stamped money as at ina. Hence the more correct remark of Didymus (ad v. 36), Ört beiðav, 6 rpūroc kāya: Koptutious to uérpov, 'Apyelor #v. (Müller, Æginet, p. 55.) But what are we to do with the authority of Aristotle, who speaks of Phidon as a Corinthian, and very early legislator (Polit., 2, 3, 7, ed. Schn.), while elsewhere he makes mention of Phidon, the tyrant Tepi Apyor (Polit., 5, 8, 4, p. 218, Schn.) The best answer is that contained in the words of Müller: “Potest Aristoteles, de instituto vetere Corinthiorum, quod ad Phidonem legislatorem referebant, certior factus, quis ille Phido fuerit ipse dubitasse.” (AEginet, p. 66.). The question, however, still remains open to discussion, i Heyne, among others, expressly distinguishes the Corinthian from the Argive Phidon. (Opusc. Acad, vol. 2, p. 255, in notis.) In a fragment also of Heraclides Ponticus (p. 22), mention is made of a Cumaean Phidon, who rāstoat utričeke Târ troAtreiaç. So that the name appears to have belonged to more than one legislator.—The power of the Argive Phidon is said to have been overthrown by the Lacedæmonians about the 11th Olympiad, when leisure was allowed them to attend to the affairs of the Peloponnesus, the first Messenian war having been brought to a close. The chronology of Phidon's reign has been satisfactorily settled by Müller, in his “AEgnetica,” a work to which we have already more than once referred, and in the course of the discussion be examines critically the computation of the Parian Marble, and also that of Eusebius. The same scholar has likewise explained away the difficulty in the text of Herodotus (6, 127), by supposing that the historian confounded a later Phidon with the ruler of Argos. There is no need, therefore, of any of the emendations proposed by Gronovius, Reitz, and others, although the correction suggested by Gronovius meets with the approbation of Larcher, Porson, and Gaisford. (Larcher, ad Herod., l.c.—Porson, Tracts, p. 325–Gaisford ad Herod., l.c.—Compare Musgrave, Disserta

tions, p. 178, seqq.) In the Brandenburg collection, there is a coin, described by Beger, which bears dh one side a diota, with the inscription d'IAO, and on the other a Boeotian shield. This has been often taken for a coin of Phidon the Argive, but on no good grounds whatever. The known device of Ægina is, almost without an exception, a tortoise, while the shield portrayed upon this coin is as exclusively a badge of Boeotia, and is too highly executed for so remote a period. It appears, also, that it was a common practice in Boeotia to inscribe the name of some magistrate upon their coins. (Beger, Thesaurus Brandenb., p. 279. — Cardwell, Lectures on Ancient Coinage, p. 1 11.)—II. A native of Cumae. (Wid. Phidon I.)

Philadelphia (pañadéApeta), I. a city of Lydia, southeast of Sardis. It stood on a root of Mount Timolus, by the river Cogamus, and derived its name from its founder, Attalus Philadelphus, brother of Eumenes. The frequent earthquakes which it experienced were owing to its vicinity to the region called Catacecaumene. Even the city walls were not secure, but were shaken almost daily, and disparted. The inhabitants lived in perpetual apprehension, and were almost constantly employed in repairs. They were few in number, the people chiefly residing in the country, and cultivating the soil, which was very fertile. (Strabo, 628.) Tacitus mentions it among the cities restored by Tiberius, after a more than ordinary calamity of the kind to which we have just alluded. (Ann., 2, 47.) In the midst of these alarms, however, Christianity flourished in Philadelphia, and the place is mentioned in the Book of Revelations as one of the seven churches of Asia (3, 7). At a later day, the zeal of the Philadelphians showed forth conspicuously in the gallant defence they made against the Turks on more than one occasion. (G. Pachym., p. 290.) At length they were conquered by Bajazet in 1390. M. Duc., p. 70.—Chalcond., p. 33.) The place is now called Allah-sehr, and preserves some remains of Christianity, and also a few monuments of heathen antiquity. Chandler states, “that it is now a mean but considerable town, of large extent, spreading up the slopes of three or four hills. Of the walls which encompassed it, many remnants are standing, but with large gaps.” (Travels, p. 310, seq.), Mr. Arundell, who visited this place in 1826, was informed by the Greek bishop that there were “twenty-five churches in it, but that divine service was chiefly confined to five only, in which it was regularly performed every week, but in the larger number only once a year.” (Visit to the Seven Churches of Asia, p. 170.) Mr. Fellows, who visited the spot in 1838, remarks, “Of the ancient city of Philadelphia but little remains; its walls are still standing, enclosing several hills, upon the sides of which stood the town, but they are fallen into ruins. They are built of unhewn stone, massed and cemented together with fragments of old edifices: some immense remains of buildings, huge square stone pillars, supporting brick arches, are also standing, and are called the ruins of the Christian Church. All the remains which have been pointed out to me as ruins of Christian churches appear to have been vast temples, perhaps erected by imperial command, and dedicated to nominal Christianity, but showing, in the niches and brackets for statues and architectural ornaments, traces of heathen superstition.” (Tour in Asia Minor, p. 288.) The meaning of the modern name, Allah-sehr, is “the city of God,” an appellation which forms a strange kind of coincidence with the departed glories of the place. (Arundell, p. 169.—Compare Milner's History of the Seven Churches, p. 317.)—II. A city of Cilicia Trachea, on the river Calycadnus, to the north of Seleucia Trachea. The site is thought by Leake to correspond to the modern Ermeněk. (Journal, p. 117.) Captain Beaufort, on the other hand, supposes that Phila

delphia may be represented by Mout or Mood, a town of some size, near the junction of the two principal branches of the Calycadnus. (Karamania, p. 223.) Leake, however, makes Mout to be Claudiopolis. (Cramer's Asia Minor, vol. 2, p. 332.)—III. The capital city of the Ammonites, situate among the mountains of Gilead, near the sources of the Jabok or Jobaccus. It received its name from Ptolemy Philadelphus. (Steph. Byz.) Its Oriental appellation was Rabbath Ammon. Stephanus of Byzantium informs us, that it was first called Ammana (Ammon), afterward Astarte, and at last Philadelphia. It was one of the cities of Decapolis. Pliny, in enumerating these ten cities, names Raphana after Philadelphia, which Mannert thinks may be a corruption from Rabathammona. Abulfeda speaks of ruins at a place called Amman, which would seem to correspond with the site of this city. (Mannert, Geogr., vol. 6, pt. 1, § 320.) Philadelphus, the surname of the second Ptolemy of Egypt. (Wid. Ptolemaeus II.) Phil Ae, an island and city of Egypt, south of Syene. The city appears to have owed its existence to the Ptolemies, who intended it as a friendly meetingplace and a common emporium for the Egyptians and the Ethiopians from Meroë. Hence, according to some, the name of the place. (‘bižat, from piaos.Compare Servius, ad AEn., 6, 323, “locum quem Philas, hoc est amicas, vocant.”) Others, however, derive it from the Egyptian Phi lakh, “the end” or “extremity” (i. e., of Egypt), and others, again, from the Arabic Phil, “an elephant,” making Philae and Elephantina identical. (Consult Jablonski, Voc. AEgypt., s: v.– Opusc., vol. 1, p. 455, seq., ed. Te Water.) The island contains at present many splendid remains of antiquity. In its immediate vicinity was a small rocky island called "Abaroc (Abatos) by the Greeks, from the circumstance of its being permitted the priests alone to set foot on it, and its being hence inaccessible to others. In this place was the tomb of Osiris, Isis having here deposited his remains. (Tzetz. ad Lycophr., v. 212–Zoega, de Obelisc., p. 286.-Description de l'Egypte, Antiq., vol. 1, p. 44.—Creuzer, Comment. Herod., p. 182, seqq.) The modern name is Gezirat-el-Birbe (“Temple-island”), in allusion to the remains of antiquity upon it. (Mannert, Geogr., vol. 10, pt. 1, p. 235, seqq.) Philae Ni, two Carthaginian brothers, whose names have been handed down to modern times for a signal act of devotion to their country. A contest, it seems, had arisen between the Carthaginians and Cyreneans, respecting the point where their respective territories met, and this was the more difficult to be determined, since the country on the borders of the two states was a sandy desert, and without anything that might serve as a common landmark. It was agreed at last, that two individuals should set out at the same time from Carthage and Cyrene respectively, and that the spot where they might meet should be regarded as the common boundary of the two communities. The parties accordingly set out, the two Philaeni having been selected by the Carthaginians for this purpose; but the two Cyreneans travelled more slowly than their Carthaginian antagonists, and only met the Philaeni after the latter had advanced a considerable distance into the disputed territory. The Cyreneans thereupon accused the Philaeni of unfairness, and of having started before the appointed time. The Philaeni, on their

part, offered to do anything to show that they had act

ed fairly, and the two Cyreneans then gave them their choice, either to be buried alive on the spot where they were standing, or else to allow them, the Cyreneans, to advance as far as they pleased into the disputed territory, and there be buried alive on their part. The Philani accepted the former part of the offer, and were accordingly entombed. The Carthaginians erected two altars on the spot, which were ofoil zoa l

garded as the limits of their territory in this direction. (Sall., Bell. Jug., 19.--Id. ib., 79.) These altars stood in the innermost bend of the Syrtis Major, and not, as Sallust erroneously states, to the west of both the Syrtes. The story of the Philaeni, moreover, as given by the Roman historian, seems to wear a doubtful appearance, from the circumstance of Cyrene's being so much nearer the point in question than Carthage. If the distance between these two cities be divided into eight equal parts, the Philani will be found to have travelled six, and the deputies from Cyrene only two, of these parts. The truth, therefore, was robably this : the territory in dispute lay between H. on the Cyrenean side, and Leptis Magna on the Carthaginian; and the deputies started from these two places, not from Carthage and Cyrene. (Mannert, Geogr., vol. 10, pt. 2, p. 116.) PhilaMMon, an ancient bard, belonging to the worship of Apollo at Delphi, and whose name was celebrated at that place. To him was attributed the formation of Delphian choruses of virgins, which sang the birth of Latona and of her children. (Müller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 24.) He is said to have taken part in the Argonautic expedition, and passed for a son of Apollo. (Plut., de Mus., p. 629, ed. Wyttenb.) Philémon, I. a comic poet, the rival of Menander. According to some authorities, he was a native of Syracuse (Suidas, s. v.), while others make him to have been born at Soli, in Cilicia. (Strabo, 671.) He seems to have been a writer of considerable powers. His wit, ingenuity, skill in depicting character, and expression of sentiment, are praised by Apuleius (Florid., 3, n. 16), while he pronounces him inferior, however, to his more celebrated antagonist. The popular voice, on the other hand, often gave Philemon the prize over Menander (Aul. Gell., 17, 4), perhaps because he studied more the tastes of the vulgar, or used other adseititious means of popularity. This, at least, Menander gave him to understand, when on one occasion he met his rival and asked him : “Pr'ythee, Philemon, dost thou not blush when thou gainest the prize over my head?” (Aul. Gell, l.c.) We may see a favourable specimen of his construction of plots in the Trinummus of Plautus, which is a translation from his engavpóc. (Prol. Trinumm., 18, seqq.) Temso." of body, with cheerfulness of mind, prolonged is life to the great age of ninety-seven years (Lucian, Macrob., 25), during which period he composed ninetyseven comedies. The manner of his death is variously related. The common account makes him to have died of laughter on seeing an ass eat figs. The statement of Apuleius, however, is the most probable, according to which he expired without pain or disease, from the pure exhaustion of nature (l. c.—Wal. Maz., 12, 6). — Philemon began to exhibit comedy during the reign of Alexander, a little earlier than Menander, and before the 113th Olympiad. He died in the reign of the second Antigonus, son of Demetrius. It has been said above that he lived to the age of ninety-seven years; Suidas, however, makes it ninety-six, and other authorities ninety-nine. (Diod, Eclog., lib. 23, ed. Bip., vol. 9, p. 318. —Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, 2d ed., p. 157.) The fragments of Philemon are usually printed along with those of Memander. The best edition of these conjointly is that of Meineke, Berol., 1823, 8vo. (Theatre of the Greeks, p. 121, ed. 4.)—II. A son of the preceding, also a comic poet, and called, for distinction' sake, Philemon the younger (6 veðrepoc.—Athen., 7, p. 291, d.). Philet A. Rus, a eunuch made governor of Pergamus by Lysimachus. (Vid. Pergamus II.) Philitas, a native of Cos, and the only poet that we know of at the court of Ptolemy I., who made him preceptor to his son and successor Ptolemy Philadelphus. Philetas was both a grammarian and poet. He composed elegies, which were the model of those of

Propertius, and he is said to have given quite a new character to this species of poetry, in his description of the joys and sorrows of love. He wrote also lyric and lighter poems. The ancients prized him very highly, and the inhabitants of Cos erected a brazen statue to him. Quintilian ranks him next to Callimachus (10, 1, 58). We have only a few fragments remaining of his elegies, and some verses also in the anthology. Philetas was remarkable for his devotion to study, and reduced himself by his great application to so emaciated a habit of body, that, according to the story told in AElian, he used to wear leaden soles to his shoes or sandals (u02.1660w Terrotmučva èv roir itroëhuaat tréâuara) to prevent his being blown over by the winds (AElian, W. H., 9, 14.) Athenaeus says, that he wore balls of lead around his feet (coaipag &K požūbov metoumuéva; *xeuv tropi to Tóðe, 12, p. 552, b.). The wonder is how he could have walked. Athenaeus also states that he fairly wore himself away in fruitless endeavours to solve the sophism called by the ancients bevööuevov (or sevdozóyor), and the epithet on his tomb, which this writer cites, corroborates the statement. (Athen., 9, p. 401, e.—Casaub., ad loc.) Philippi, a city of Thrace, to the northeast of Amphipolis, and in the immediate vicinity of Mount Pangaeus. It was founded by Philip of Macedon, on the site of an old Thasian settlement. The Thasians had been attracted by the valuable gold and silver mines in this quarter, and the settlement formed by them was called Crenides, from the circumstance of its being surrounded by numerous sources which descended from the neighbouring mountain (kpāvm, a spring). Philip of Macedon having turned his attention to the affairs of Thrace, the possession of Crenides and Mount Pangasus naturally entered his views. Accordingly, he invaded this country, expelled the feeble Cotys from his throne, and then proceeded to found a new city on the site of the old Thasian colony, as above mentioned, which he named after himself, Philippi. (Diod. Sic, 16, 8.) When Macedonia became subject to the Romans, the advantages attending the peculiar situation of Philippi induced that people to settle a colony there; and we know from the Acts of the Apostles that it was already at that period one of the most flourishing cities in this part of their empire (16, 12.-Compare Plin., 4, 10). It is, moreover, celebrated in history from the great victory gained here by Antony and Octavianus over the forces of Brutus and Cassius, by which the republican party was completely subdued. (Appian, Bell. Civ., 4, 107, seqq.—Dio Cass., 47, 41.) Philippi, however, is rendered more interesting from the circumstance of its being the first place in Europe where the Gospel was preached by St. Paul (A.D. 51), as we know from the 16th of the Acts of the Apostles, and also from the Epistle he has addressed to his Philippian converts (4, 15), where the zeal and charity of the Philippians towards their apostle received a just commendation. We hear frequently of bishops of Philippi, and the town is also often mentioned by the Byzantine writers. Its ruins still retain the name of Filibah. (Cramer's Anc. Greece, vol. 1, p. 301, seqq.—Mannert, Geogr., vol. 7, p. 232.) Philippopolis, a city in the interior of Thrace, on the southeast side of the Hebrus, and some distance to the northwest of Hadrianopolis. It was situate in a large plain, on a mountain with three summits, and hence received also the appellation of Trimontium. It was founded by Philip of Macedon. In the Roman times it became the capital of the province of Thracia. The modern name is Filibe or Philipopoli. (sof: Byz., s. v.–Itin. Ant., 136–Hierocl., p. 685–Tocii, Ann., 3, 38.-Polyb., 5, 100.-Amm. Marc., 26, 10.) Philippus, I. one of the earlier kings of Macedo: nia, and the first of the name. He succeeded his

father Argaeus, about 649 B.C. according to some chronologers, and reigned, as Eusebius states, thirty#. years, but,. according to Dexippus, thirty-five. (Euseb., p. 57. Dezipp., ap. Syncell., p. 262, seq.) These numbers, however, are obviously manufactured by chronologers, upon no certain or positive testimony, since none existed. (Clinton, Fast. Hell., vol. 1, p. 221.)—II. The second of the name was the son of Amyntas II. of Macedonia. This latter monarch left three sons at the time of his death, under the care of their mother Eurydice. Of these, Alexander, the eldest, had just attained to man's estate; but Perdiccas, and Philip the youngest of the three, were still under age. Alexander, who appears to have been a prince of great promise, had scarcely ascended the throne, when he lost his life by the hand of an assassin. (Diod. Suc., 15, 71.) During his reign, however, short as it was, he was engaged in a contest with Ptolemy of Alorus. We do not know whether Ptolemy was in any way related to the royal family, nor whether he laid claim to the crown. But it seems clear that he was favoured by the queen Eurydice, the widowed mother, and was probably her paramour. According to Diodorus and Plutarch, Pelopidas, the Theban commander, came into Macedonia to arbitrate between Alexander and Ptolemy, and Philip was one of the hostages delivered on this occasion to the umpire. As this, however, is expressly contradicted by the testimony of the contemporary orator AEschines, who relates that Philip was still in Macedonia at the time of his elder brother's death, Mr. Thirlwall inclines to the following opinion: According to Plutarch, after the murder of Alexander, which must have happened a very short time aster the compromise, Pelopidas, who was in Thessaly, on his second expedition against the tyrant of Pherae, was invited into Macedonia by the friends of the deceased king, and obliged Ptolemy to enter into an engagement to preserve the crown for the younger brothers. Ptolemy, it is said, gave fifty hostages as a security for the performance of his promises, among whom was his own son Philoxenus. It seems more natural, according to Mr. Thirlwall, that Philip should have been committed to the custody of the Thebans under these circumstances, than on the occasion of the contest between Ptolemy and Alexander. (History of Greece, vol. 5, p. 163.) Ptolemy kept possession of the government three years: Diodorus simply says that he reigned so long : probably, however, he never assumed any other title than that of regent, though he may have had no intention of ever resigning his power to the rightful heir. And it was, perhaps, as much in self-defence, as to avenge his brother's murder or his mother's shame, that Perdiccas killed him. Concerning the reign of Perdiccas III. we have but very scanty information. He was slain in battle by the Illyrians, in the fifth year of his rule, leaving behind him an infant son by the name of Amyntas. At the time of this event Philip was twenty-three years of age. Diodorus supposes that he was still at Thebes, but that, on receiving intelligence of his brother's death, he made his escape and suddenly appeared in Macedonia (16, 2). It is not difficult to understand how the story may have taken this form: a hostage so important, it might easily be supposed by writers acquainted with his subsequent history, would not have been willingly surrendered by the Thebans; it is certain, however, from better authority, that he had been already restored to his country, and, it is probable, early in the reign of Perdiccas, when the Thebans could have no motive for detaining him. Extravagantly as some modern writers have indulged their imagination with regard to the manner in which his time was employed during his sojourn at Thebes, it is hardly possible to overrate the importance of the opportunities it afforded him for the funun of various kinds of knowledge,

or to doubt that he availed himself of them with all the energy and perseverance which belonged to his character. It is, perhaps, less probable that the house of Polymnis, the father of Epaminondas, should have been chosen for his residence, as Diodorus relates, than that of Pammenes, according to Plutarch's statement: and the fable of his Pythagorean studies, worthy of Diodorus, is below criticism. But a certain tincture of philosophy was at this time deemed almost an indispensable requisite in a liberal education. It was undoubtedly, however, not the study of philosophy, either speculative or practical, that chiefly occupied Philip's attention during the period of his residence at Thebes. To the society in which it was passed, he may have been mainly indebted for that command of the Greek language, which enabled him both to write and speak it with a degree of ease and eloquence not inferior to that of the most practised orators of the day. But the most important advantages which he gained from his stay at Thebes were probably derived from the military and political lessons, with which the conversation of generals and statesmen like Epaminondas, Pelopidas, and their friends, could not sail to abound. It was by them that the art of war had been carried to the highest point it had yet reached in Greece; or rather they, more particularly Epaminondas, had given it a new form ; and the details of their battles and campaigns would be eagerly collected by an intelligent and ambitious youth. Thebes was at this time the great centre of political movements: the point from which the condition, interests, and mutual relations of the Grecian states might be most distinctly surveyed. Here, too, were gained the clearest ideas of the state of parties, of the nature and working of republican, especially of democratical, institutions: here probably Philip learned many of those secrets which often enabled him to conquer without drawing the sword. And as he was placed in one of the most favourable positions for studying the Greek character, so the need which his situation imposed on him, of continual caution and selfcontrol must have served very greatly to sharpen his natural sagacity, and to form the address which he asterward displayed in dealing with men, and winning them for his ends. Nature had gisted him with almost every quality that could fit him for the station which he was destined to fill: a frame of extraordinary robustness, which was, no doubt, well trained in the exercises of the Theban palaestras: a noble person, a commanding and prepossessing mien, which won respect and inspired confidence in all who approached him: ready eloquence, to which art only applied the cultivation requisite to satisfy the fastidious demands of a rhetorical age: quickness of observation, acuteness of discernment, presence of mind, fertility of invention, and dexterity in the management of men and things. There seem to have been two features in his character, which, in another station or under different circumstances, might have gone near to lower him into an ordinary person, but which were so controlled by his fortune as to contribute not a little to his success. He appears to have been by his temperament prone to almost every kind of sensual pleasure. But as his life was too busy to allow him often to indulge his bias, his occasional excesses wore the air of an amiable condescension. So his natural humour would perhaps have led him too often to forget his dignity in his intercourse with his inseriors. But to Philip, the great king, the conqueror, the restless politician, these intervals of relaxation occurred so rarely, that they might strengthen his influence with the vulgar, and could never expose him to contempt. From that he was secured by the energy of his will, which made all his faculties and accomplishments of mind and body, and even his failings, as well as what may be called, in a lower sense, his virtues, his affability, clemency, and generosity, **** 1

to the purposes of his lofty ambition. A moral estimate of such a man's character is comprised in the bare mention of his ruling passion, and cannot be enlarged by any investigation into the motives of particular actions; and it is scarcely worth while to consider him in any other light than as an instrument of Providence for fixing the destiny of nations.—It was in the 105th Olympiad, and about 360 B.C., that Philip took charge of the government of Macedonia, not as monarch, but as the nearest kinsman, and as guardian of the royal infant, the son of his brother Perdiccas. The situation in which he was now placed was one of great apparent difficulty and danger, and the throne which he had to defend was threatened by enemies in many quarters, by the victorious Illyrians as well as by the Paeonians, and lastly by an Athenian force, which was destined to place Argaeus, a pretender to the crown, on the throne of Macedon. The Illyrians, happily, did not press their advantage; and the Paconians were induced to desist from hostilities by skilful negotiations, and secret presents made to their leaders. The Athenians were encountered in the field, and, after sustaining a defeat, were forced to surrender. (Diod. Suc., 16, 3.) Philip, however, generously granted them their liberty, and immediately sent a deputation to Athens with proposals of peace, which were gladly accepted. (Demosth. in Aristocr., § 144.) By the death of the reigning prince of Paeonia that country was soon after annexed to the dominion of Philip, but whether by right of succession or by conquest we are not informed. He next directed his arms against the Illyrians, who were totally routed after a severe conflict. The loss of the enemy is said to have amounted to 7000 men; and they were compelled to accept the terms of peace imposed by the conqueror. They ceded to him all that they possessed east of the Lake of Lychnitis, and thus not only gave him the command of the principal pass by which they had been used to penetrate into Macedonia, but opened a way by which he might at any time descend through their own territory to the shores of the Adriatic. (Consult Leake's Northern Greece, vol. 3, p. 321.) It may safely be presumed that, after this brilliant success, Philip no longer hesitated to assume the kingly title. His usurpation, for such it appears to have been according to the laws of Macedon, was, however, most probably sanctioned by the unanimous consent of both the army and nation. How secure he felt himself in their affections is manifest from his treatment of his deposed nephew. He was so little jealous of him, that he brought him to his court, and, in time, bestowed the hand of one of his daughters upon him. (Polyan., 8, 60. — Arrian, Erp. Al., 1, 5.—Athenaeus, 13, p. 557.) The transfer of the crown was so quiet and noiseless that it seems not to have reached the ears of the Athenian orators, whose silence may, at all events, be admitted as a proof that there was nothing in the transaction on which they could ground a charge against Philip.–His victory over the Illyrians is connected by Diodorus with the institution of the Macedonian phalanx, which he is said to have invented. The testimony of the ancients on this point has been very confidently rejected in modern times, without any just reason. We may indeed doubt whether this body, as it existed in the beginning of Philip's reign, differed in any important feature from that which was already familiar to the Greeks, or, at least, from the Theban phalanx. But it is another question whether the Macedonian armies had ever been organized on this plan; and there is nothing to prevent us from admitting the statement of authors, certainly better informed than ourselves, that it was first introduced by Philip. Nor is there any difficulty in believing, that he at the same time made some improvements in the arms or the structure of the

halanx, which entitled it to its peculiar epithet, and

im to the honour of an inventor. Both the tactics

and the discipline of the army seem to have been in a very low state under his predecessors; and this was, perhaps, the main cause of the defeats which they so often experienced from the neighbouring barbarians. Philip paid no less attention to the discipline than to the organization of his forces; and his regulations were enforced with inflexible severity.—In the course of about a year from his brother's death, Philip had freed himself from all his domestic embarrassments, and had seated himself firmly on the throne. In a summary account like the present, we must necessarily confine ourselves to a rapid sketch of the principal events of his reign. Allied with Athens, we find him, in conjunction with that power, carrying on operations against the republic of Olynthus, and seizing upon the city of Potidaea ; but, soon after, from some cause which is not apparent, he made peace with the Olynthians, and turned his arms against Amphipolis, which had preserved its independence ever since the days of Brasidas. After a siege of some duration, the place was taken and added to his dominions, and Philip next turned his attention to the acquisition of some valuable gold-mines on the Thracian coast, which belonged to the people of Thasos. For this purpose he crossed the Strymon, and, having easily overcome the resistance that was offered on the part of Cotys, king of Thrace, he took possession of Crenides, the Thasian mining establishment, where he founded a considerable town, and named it Philippi. The Athenians, meanwhile, incited the Thracians and Illyrians to take up arms against the King of Macedon, whose rising power inspired them with well-founded grounds for jealousy and alarm ; but the latter were again defeated by Parmenio, and Philip easily repelled the former in person. The small republic of Methone, which had also shown a spirit of hostility at the instigation of Athens, was surrounded by a Macedonian army, and, though the town held out for more than a year, and Philip received during the siege a wound by which he lost an eye, it was at length compelled to surrender. At this period, the Thessalian towns, being threatened by the forces of Lycophron, tyrant of Pherap, supported by the Phocians, urgently sought the aid of the King of Macedon. He accordingly entered Thessaly at the head of a powerful army, and in its plains encountered the enemy, commanded by Onomarchus, the Phocian leader. Here, however, the usual good fortune of Philip forsook him; and, being twice vanquished with great loss, he effected his retreat into Macedonia with considerable difficulty. Undismayed, however, by these reverses, and having quickly recruited his army, he once more entered Thessaly, whither also Onomarchus directed his march from Phocis. The two armies were again engaged at no great distance from Pherae, when Philip gained a complete victory; six thousand of the enemy having pershed on the field, among whom was Onomarchus, their general. This success was followed up by the capture of Pherae, Pagasae, and the whole of Thessaly, which henceforth warmly espoused the interests of Philip on every occasion. (Justin, 8, 2.-Polyb., 9, 33.) Meanwhile, the republic of Olynthus, which had recovered its strength under the protection of Macedonia, came to a rupture with that power, probably at the instigation of a party in Athens. War was, in consequence, determined upon, and the Olynthians, supported by a considerable Athenian force under Chares, twice ventured to attack the army of Philip, but, being unsuccessful on both occasions, were at length compelled to retire within the walls of their city, to which the enemy immediately laid siege. At variance among themselves, and open to treachery and defection, from the bribery employed, as it is said, on more than one occasion by Philip, the Olynthians were ultimately forced to surrender; when the King of Macedon, bent on the destruction of a state which had so often men

« PoprzedniaDalej »